Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kapil Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 July, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1 CRA-1015-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 1015 of 2025
(KAPIL YADAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )
Dated : 23-07-2025
Shri Sampooran Tiwari - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Yash Soni - Deputy Advocate General for the respondent No.1-
State.
Heard on I.A. No.2157/2025, which is first application under Section
389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to
appellant Kapil Yadav S/o Rajendra Yadav.
The appellant is aggrieved of the judgment dated 10.08.2024 passed by
the learned Special Judge (SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989),
Jabalpur (M.P.) in case No.SCATR/179/2022, whereby the appellant stands
convicted for offence under Sections 302 and 307 of Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to undergo life imprisonment (fine of Rs.1,000/-) and R.I. for 5
years (fine of Rs.1,000/-), respectively, with default stipulation to undergo
additional R.I. for 6 months on each count.
Shri Sampooran Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant submits that
the appellant is innocent. Injured eye-witness PW-1 Chhedilal is the sole
person who has given testimony against the appellant. He had shown
presence of another witness, namely, PW-7 Raju, but Raju has turn hostile
and has not supported the prosecution's case. It is further submitted that PW-
11 Dr. P.N. Dixit who had examined injured witness Chhedilal admitted in
his cross-examination that he had not mentioned dimensions of the sword
2 CRA-1015-2025
when it was presented to him for query report. It is also submitted that PW-
13 Dr. Adamkant has also admitted in his cross-examination that he has not
differentiated between the injuries which were dangerous to life and injuries
which were grievous in nature.
It is also submitted that the appellant had taken a plea of alibi that his
wife was since working as a school teacher, he was at home looking after
their minor daughter of 3½ years and in support of his contention, he
examined DW-1 Rakhi Yadav, school teacher and DW-2 Jitendra Dehariya,
who claimed himself to be an Advocate. Thus, it is submitted that since there
was no motive as can be seen from the evidence of PW-3 Rashi Bai,
daughter of the injured and deceased, case will fall under Section 307 of IPC
and not under Section 302 of IPC. Therefore, it is prayed that indulgence be
shown and the appellant be extended the benefit of suspension of sentence.
Shri Yash Soni, learned Public Prosecutor, in his turn, submits that
there is seizure of sword vide Ex.P-20. FSL report is Ex.P-60, which clearly
reveals that there was human blood on Article 'G' which is the sword
recovered from the house of appellant Kapil Yadav besides his shirt (Article
'H') and Gamcha (Article 'I'). It is also submitted that Ex.P-68 is the FSL
report which points out that Article 'A' which is a white colour Gamcha
containing 3 cut marks and Article 'F1' which is a printed saree having a cut
mark reveals that the cut marks were caused with single sharp edged weapon
as was presented vide Article 'G' i.e. sword. Thus, it is submitted that
evidence of PW-1 Chhedilal is corroborated with scientific evidence and
thus, there is no ground to show indulgence.
3 CRA-1015-2025
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, evidence of PW-1 Chhedilal has remained unrebutted. Though
learned counsel for the appellant has tried to introduce a fiction saying that
complainant himself is an assailant, but there is no such material available on
record that any suggestion was given to the complainant or his daughter PW-
3 Rashi Bai that it was the complainant who had caused injuries to the
deceased and he is responsible for homicidal death of deceased.
As far as evidence of PW-7 Raju is concerned, it is true that he has
turned hostile, but PW-8 Dr. Mukesh Rai is the doctor who conducted
postmortem on the body of deceased. This doctor in paragraph 4 of his
cross-examination categorically mentioned that in the query report, he had
categorically mentioned that there are red-brown spots on the face of the
sword. Thus, it is evident that blood stains were found on the sword and they
have been matched in the FSL report (Ex.P-60). Secondly, another aspect
which is required to be taken into consideration is that PW-11 Dr. P.N. Dixit
and PW-13 Dr. Adamkant are not the doctors who conducted MLC or
postmortem on the body of deceased. They are the persons who had
examined injured Chhedilal. Even otherwise, evidence of PW-18 N.P.
Prajapati is read over by Shri Sampooran Tiwari, learned counsel for the
appellant and it has come on record that he had produced the sword in the
court and had admitted that there were no blood stains on it when it was
produced before the court. However, his submission that sword was not
produced in the court of law is self contradictory as can be seen from the
cross-examination of PW-18 N.P. Prajapati. When all these facts are taken
4 CRA-1015-2025
into consideration, then it is settled principle of law that even in the light of
single eye-witness's testimony, conviction can be upheld and especially in
the present case, where the conviction is duly supported with scientific
evidence as contained in the FSL reports (Ex.P-60 and Ex.P-68), we are of
the opinion that this is not a fit case to extend benefit of suspension of
sentence.
Accordingly, I.A. No.2157/2025 fails and is dismissed.
List the case for final hearing as per its turn and seniority.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
pp
